Ottoman withdraw from war-Ottoman surrenders

[Sapare]

Curious thing here...(yes, I am same guy with the Itally bug.. don't blame me!)

What is the difference/chance between the Ottoman surrendering and them just withdrawing from the war?

Because normally all their land is giving to Russia but my brother had a case of them just plain withdrawing and the land going back to neutral.(then in the same turn the Ottoman joining the war on CP side again, with 50% moral but that did not repeat when he replayed the same turn.)

Any explanation for those events?

[Bill101]

Hi Sapare

If they are invaded and their capital is captured, then they will most likely surrender and whoever has invaded would then take their territory.

But if their capital is still theirs and they pull out of the war because their National Morale falls below 1%, then they should go back to neutral as your brother saw.

If the capital had fallen and their National Morale was below 1%, then either result could happen because the Ottomans could pass the surrender check that happens every turn after your capital has fallen, and therefore pull out of the war due to their low NM.

I hope this makes sense and may explain the varying results?

[Sapare]

That explains the logic behind it, but I do ask you to consider rethinking that skript.

While I do get the idea of it there are quite some logic problem with owning half ot the Ottoman empire(captured by England and Russia) and then suddenly the Ottoman's being like "We are back to statues quo guys! all land goes back to ours") I do not mean this disrespectfully but just consider it an easily abusable flaw in game balance.

I think you should consider giving the Etente a decisions skript where they decide if they want to accep a statues quo withdraw from war or continue the war(in which case Ottoman regain about 50% moral and contiune to fight till they are utterly destroyed)

And other note, I have seen Ottoman compleetly surrender after moral droped to 0 before.(twice in fact, once against AI and once against human player)(without capital being capture that is)

Also, just out of curiousity, what happens to the land if Russia surrenders after gaining Ottoman territory? And what happens to the land if Ottoman surrenders after Russia has given up?(does england get the land?)

[Kommandant]

That explains the logic behind it, but I do ask you to consider rethinking that skript.

While I do get the idea of it there are quite some logic problem with owning half ot the Ottoman empire(captured by England and Russia) and then suddenly the Ottoman's being like "We are back to statues quo guys! all land goes back to ours") I do not mean this disrespectfully but just consider it an easily abusable flaw in game balance.

I think you should consider giving the Etente a decisions skript where they decide if they want to accep a statues quo withdraw from war or continue the war(in which case Ottoman regain about 50% moral and contiune to fight till they are utterly destroyed)

And other note, I have seen Ottoman compleetly surrender after moral droped to 0 before.(twice in fact, once against AI and once against human player)(without capital being capture that is)

Also, just out of curiousity, what happens to the land if Russia surrenders after gaining Ottoman territory? And what happens to the land if Ottoman surrenders after Russia has given up?(does england get the land?)

You make very funny post Spare...

I can answer the last one, nothing happen to that territory, if you look, today the land that the ottoman took back from the russian are still in the hands of the turks.... If the ottomans have completely surrendered and their territory is in the russian hands I think it will be the same thing.

[Sapare]

I don't really like that "spare" typo, just saying. ;p

Also, funny in what way?

And well, the Russia/Ottoman thing I guess makes sense? But to be honest... it isn't common in European history for acountry to compleetly anex another (major) country like that... it feels odd for Russia to just take the Ottoman empire.

2nd point, Ottoman surrendered while fighting on German side, are you telling me Germany would not demand the returning of freedom to the Ottoman empire after forcing Russia to its knees? That would be really strange..

[Bill101]

Hi Sapare

Thanks for the answers and I think I've identified one issue that is explaining some of the variable results.

Regarding your second point about territory transfers, in the long run, i.e. after the peace conference, I think you're totally right that the victor would undo any transfers of territory that had penalized their allies. But in the context of the game, this shouldn't matter too much as we are dealing with the events that lead up to the peace conference.

In the context of the times, having an opponent sue for peace was normally enough for their wish to be granted, provided they didn't ask for lots of unacceptable terms. Therefore I'm not sure how realistic a decision is for one side to decide whether or not to accept peace when it's offered. Certainly the British and Russian governments would have welcomed an early Ottoman surrender above all, and the National Morale penalty to Germany and Austria-Hungary is a good bonus from this.

I have generally liked to keep the war-exits as simple as possible, partly because they are already rather complicated in the scripts and thus keeping them simple reduces the chances of errors, but I will think about this some more.

Bill

[Kommandant]

I don't really like that "spare" typo, just saying. ;p

Also, funny in what way?

That was a typing mistake

I just laugh at your posts, don't know why

[Sapare]

"In the context of the times, having an opponent sue for peace was normally enough for their wish to be granted, provided they didn't ask for lots of unacceptable terms. Therefore I'm not sure how realistic a decision is for one side to decide whether or not to accept peace when it's offered. Certainly the British and Russian governments would have welcomed an early Ottoman surrender above all, and the National Morale penalty to Germany and Austria-Hungary is a good bonus from this."

Just to mention, I do believe that Germany wanted to start peace debates sometime 1916 and Britian had set way to high demands for it to be accaptable. What stops Britian from doing the same here?

Personally(if possible) I would REALLY love to see a peace treaty system in he style of "Victoria 2" where victory and defeats(and loss and gain of land) are calculated into a warscore and based on the warscore each countries has they can place demands to the table and as long as those demands are reasonable the country has to agree to it.(or will face internal consequences) The warscore could in his case be bound with the NM(If a country has very low NM then the people should probably accept worse terms of peace) and maybe the land you already captured.(I think NM would be best to bind with it, unless you captured the whole country ofcourse, but that would offer anexation)

I know that such a system is way to much work for a patch but I just wanted to have brought it up for consideration in a later game.(This would allow real player involvment when it comes to peace treaties)

[Bill101]

Just to mention, I do believe that Germany wanted to start peace debates sometime 1916 and Britian had set way to high demands for it to be accaptable. What stops Britian from doing the same here?

Hi

I've been thinking about this further and I think the essential is perhaps not necessarily the terms offered, but whether the threat has been neutralized from the country offering to make peace.

I know that the German terms in 1916 weren't considered acceptable by the Entente, and also, because the German army was still strong and unbeaten, it was considered that any peace would only have been temporary.

The situation had changed by late 1918 when the German army was collapsing, and the same would apply with the Ottoman Empire when their National Morale falls to nothing. In both these situations, the Germans and Ottomans would no longer be a threat to the Entente, therefore peace could be made so as to free up the armed forces for war with any remaining part of the Central Powers.

[Sapare]

Hi

I've been thinking about this further and I think the essential is perhaps not necessarily the terms offered, but whether the threat has been neutralized from the country offering to make peace.

I know that the German terms in 1916 weren't considered acceptable by the Entente, and also, because the German army was still strong and unbeaten, it was considered that any peace would only have been temporary.

The situation had changed by late 1918 when the German army was collapsing, and the same would apply with the Ottoman Empire when their National Morale falls to nothing. In both these situations, the Germans and Ottomans would no longer be a threat to the Entente, therefore peace could be made so as to free up the armed forces for war with any remaining part of the Central Powers.

I wish to point out here though that there is a VERY strong stratigical importance to the Ottoman land. That is why just accepting their neutrality(or being forced to) is really not that great.

In the game I am talking about all of Greece has been captured, what do you propose the 10 or so units in Afrika to do?(The obvious plan is to make them invade bulgaria through the Ottoman land, but you can't becuase all your units are magicaly pushed back to egypt.

Also, even more importantly: Your fleet is traped in red sea,(is it? Refering to the sea Russia and Ottoman share) this is undebatably glitchy. Then there is also the cases that Ottoman ships can still be used to "scout" the ocean even if they can't attack.(glitchy too)

The whole withdrawing from war just throws up a lot of problems in my opinion.

(Edit: I do not mean to sound ungreatful or disrespectful in the above post btw, just tired and has been a long day.

[Bill101]

Hi

That's fine. I'm giving this some thought because I do appreciate the issue you've raised, but I don't want to promise a change here until I've thought it through fully and considered any potential pitfalls.

[Sapare]

I hate to be reviving dead topics but as this is still undecided I consider it fine to do so.

I don't know if I really mentioned this earlier but also another reason why the difference between Ottoman Surrendr/withdrawl is REALLY huge.

Russia is pretty much impossible to defeat once they gain all of the Ottoman land.(It pretty much equals out all of Poland and the whole area before Petrograd)

This I think kinda ruins the idea of the Russian's being the unstable country in the war, I don't know if possible but I was thinking that maybe just giving them a moral boost(5 to 10%) and then making all of the Ottoman cities/towns be worth 0 moral.(Still giving Russia the Industrial boon but not making their moral go up by 2% each turn)

If you don't believe me how large the impact of Russia controlling all of Ottoman is, then test it out for yourself, it is seriously insanly huge.(which is why Ottoman just withdrawing from war is actully a bad and not a good thing for the allies)

And on last note, which I think I mentioned before(kinda) I still think that even if nothing ells is changed, give the Allies an event script/option which asks them if they wish to accept Ottoman withdrawl or not.(if they do then things happen as they currently are, Ottoman goes back to neutral and CP loses NM, All units are kicked out of their land. But if they don't then Ottoman NM goes back to 50% and the war goes on as normal(Allies do not magically lose all the land they had captured) and the script comes up again once Ottoman reach 0% NM again, rinse and repeat till Allies accept or Capital is captured).

And on an final unralted personal note, does Russia really need that final Capital city all the way in the mountains? It is literarly impossible to capture as the CP and kinda makes it useless to captue Petrograd/Moscow as they themself do not give a moral damage to the country?(why is that? They care if Warsaw is captured but Petrograd(City of the Tzar or somthing like that?) has no effect?(I think it gives a moral boon to Germany, but that doesn't explain for the Russian neutrality toward it)(same with Berlin, all capital cities need to have a moral event scripted to them)

While I am at it, also consider all of those Ottoman withdraw points I made to the Austrian-Hungarian empire withdraw. Them just being ripped apart and the minor nations ignoring the fact that you have to travel through their land(or even captured it) is just not fair gamebalance whise.

[Bill101]

Hi Sapare

Don't worry, it's not a dead subject and we are currently testing out something which is pretty closely based on your suggestion for a Decision when Ottoman morale falls low. It's certainly a good idea and hopefully it will pretty much fix this issue.

Regarding Russia, the last capital is far back so that if invaded they can fall back, possibly even giving up their capitals as they gave up Moscow in 1812. Generally their National Morale will have fallen very low if the Central Powers get that far, so I haven't thought it necessary to include any extra National Morale hits for losing Moscow and St Petersburg.

In a way it makes sense, but given that their National Morale will already be low, I wonder if introducing this could remove the opportunity for the Russians to launch a counterattack after either city has fallen?

It certainly isn't in the Russians interest to allow their western cities to fall without a fight, which is why I expect their National Morale to be low, and constantly falling, if the Central Powers do drive to the east.

While I am at it, also consider all of those Ottoman withdraw points I made to the Austrian-Hungarian empire withdraw. Them just being ripped apart and the minor nations ignoring the fact that you have to travel through their land(or even captured it) is just not fair gamebalance whise.

I'm afraid that I'm not sure I understand this. Please can you explain further?

Thanks

Bill

[Sapare]

The Russian city moral thing, that is true I guess. Though I do know I had a game before where I captured Petersburg and it still took Russia a long time to leave the war.(It was one of my first games and I did not send Lenin, so overall I didn't do to great.) But overall, if Germany seriously pushes all the way back to ST Petersburg, does Russia really diserve an easy(or good) opertunity to strike back? All the NM they lose they are losing becuase of the way they are being beaten. (And St Petersburg is seriously one of the most difficult cities to capture at any rate)

With the Austria/hungarien empire note I just meant that everything I mentioned in this topic about Ottoman shoul also apply to them.(them withdrawing from war and not giving the Entente an option to continue the war and the losing of captured land)

Also something unrelated but what might be note worthy.(this is mostly at the begining of matches)

The spawning of units can be quite unfair/glitchy at times. For example, The Russian mayor city close to Konigsberg spawns an HQ in it,(in the 2nd turn I believe) but if you moved your corps into that city in just the right locations it can happen that it instead spawns INFRONT of the city and close to the German units.

I have seen the HQ get killed by that before.(which I guess is very unlucky)

Point is, while I don't know how to fix it I think there should be some way of knowing where units are going to spawn do to scripts becuase it can make quite an impact(This is very obvious for Austria on the Russian front, I had two corps not spawn because the territory was captured(Russian horse unit moved past my main line) and then sometime 1913 when I recaptured the territory they suddenly spawned.(Which would have been nice to know there were units waiting to spawn there)

[lettowvorbeck]

I agree and would like to see the reinforcing points looked at again.

The A-H units in Galicia spawn/mobilize in potential danger at the front in Call to Arms. I would prefer to see them appear a few tiles to the rear and have the player bring them up if they choose. There are enough units to cover the Galician forts and towns with corps present at setup, so it's not a question of necessity in occupying empty points.

also, in a recent 1.04 game, a hard coded reinforcing French cavalry unit (the last of the units from 1914 mobilization?) appeared in front of my French lines and adjacent to two German corps!

[Sapare]

I agree and would like to see the reinforcing points looked at again.

The A-H units in Galicia spawn/mobilize in potential danger at the front in Call to Arms. I would prefer to see them appear a few tiles to the rear and have the player bring them up if they choose. There are enough units to cover the Galician forts and towns with corps present at setup, so it's not a question of necessity in occupying empty points.

also, in a recent 1.04 game, a hard coded reinforcing French cavalry unit (the last of the units from 1914 mobilization?) appeared in front of my French lines and adjacent to two German corps!

Yes, I know that one. It never died for me so I forgot to mention it here, but it does spawn rather far forward.(Though normally only one corps touches it and there is a river between the two, but I guess that is based on how you draw the lin)

I think this spawn is 3 turns into the game and just one left and behind Verdun. But I might be a bit off.

(EDIT: I guess you can only edit your newest post? Anyway, obviouly the 1913 in my post up there is a mistake. I was just refering to a general date sometime one year into the war.(What would be 1915 but I have been playing to much WW2... lol)

[Ludi1867]

The issue of dedicated reinforcement locations is very problematic, and has become a serious problem for me in PBEM games. There are a number of occasions where newly introduced reinforcements end up being badly mauled or destroyed because they are placed in positions that are either exposed or too well known to players. There have been a few mentioned already, and there are others, such as Hindendburg. It may seem like the initial positions that these units are placed in are reasonable, but once the spawn location is known, it can become vulnerable. (And Hindenburg CAN be killed, even though his start location seems well behind the lines...but once a player knows where Hindenburg will show up, the exact location becomes vulnerable.)

There is at least one easy solution – stop letting the computer automatically place reinforcements. Instead, allow players to place the newly arriving unit, either at the end or the beginning of a turn as appropriate. To reflect historical location, the initial placement locations might be restricted to within two or three squares of where the computer 'normally' places the unit, but a live human can judge whether a reinforcement should be placed closer to – or FURTHER away – from the front line, as appropriate.

The solution that SC has for initial placement of mobilizing or DE units may seem reasonable, but against human players it all too often becomes a real problem.

[Bill101]

But overall, if Germany seriously pushes all the way back to ST Petersburg, does Russia really diserve an easy(or good) opertunity to strike back? All the NM they lose they are losing becuase of the way they are being beaten. (And St Petersburg is seriously one of the most difficult cities to capture at any rate)

It's a fair point and I'll put this on my list of things to think over. It would help to see some examples after the patch is released if anyone does march directly on St Petersburg.

While we all know what happened to Russia during the war, I do wonder if a strong invasion by the Germans earlier in the war could have led to different outcomes, such as a stiffening of Russian resistance as what had been a distant war came closer to the cities of Moscow and St Petersburg.

With the Austria/hungarien empire note I just meant that everything I mentioned in this topic about Ottoman shoul also apply to them.(them withdrawing from war and not giving the Entente an option to continue the war and the losing of captured land)

Thanks for the explanation and I'll have a think about this too!

[Bill101]

Thanks for the comments regarding the spawning locations.

Good news is that the French cavalry deployment has been amended slightly for the forthcoming patch.

One thing that could be done for Hindenburg would be to alternate his deployment between Marienburg and Danzig, so that the Russian player will never know for sure where he will be coming.

Von Rennenkampf's arrival at Kovno can also be adjusted, maybe to Vilna as it's still close enough to command the units of his army from.

As the mobilization schedules were pretty much set in stone before the war, I'd hesitate to make them too unpredictable. But I'm happy to consider changing the locations of any other weak units, e.g. HQs and cavalry, if there are some more examples of these.